"John Gaquin" wrote in message
gatt....
1. There's no need to shout.

AAAUUUGGHH!! I'M FRIGGIN' CRAZY! STAY BACK! ;

2. The word 'evidence', while by definition not absolutely denoting
proof,
does, to most people and in the common vernacular, strongly imply hard
fact

Yep. When a bunch of people independently claim to have heard explosions,
that's evidence. And that's all we're talking about. Not hard fact.

3. If you've been around aviation and paying attention for more than a
couple of weeks, you know that a) most eyewitnesses are worthless,

I disgree. Eyewitnesses are exactly how each and every one of us understands
9/11. Was your viewing of the planes crashing into the WTCs "worthless"?
Unless you saw it happen yourself (in which case your opinion would be
"worthless") the imagery you think of when you think of the WTC attacks is
based on eyewitnesses.

investigators rarely if ever make hard statements until facts are
established.

It's not a hard statement to say that witnesses reported explosions.
Regardless of whether the explosions were fact, the multiple accounts of it
are evidence, and we're talking about evidence here, not proof or fact.

-c